[Mailman-Developers] GSOC Project Discussion

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Wackerbarth writes:

 > I agree that it might be messier. But it still might be cleaner if
 > you want the moderators, etc. to have all of the "subscription
 > options"

We don't.  Some are meaningless (notMeToo, noDups), some should not be
available (noMail -- at least not if a vacation facility is
available).

I don't contest that there are strong similarities between a "list of
moderators" and a "mailing list of subscribers".  What I'm saying is
that they're not the same, there are several variations on the theme,
and we must strongly consider deriving them from a more general type.

 > > I don't think this will fit users' models of the moderator and owner
 > > roles.  Mailing lists have moderators, not an auto-generated
 > > associated mailing list containing only the moderators.
 > 
 > That all depends on how you present it, not on how you implement
 > it.  IIRC, the list of moderators is a roster, just like the
 > subscribers.  A different template can make two rosters appear to
 > be quite different.

The developers are users too, though.  I think the implementation, not
just the presentation, should correspond to our notions of "what
things are."

Steve